▲ 144 ▼ Everyone in Japan will be called Sato by 2531 unless marriage law changed, says professor (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world 29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 37 points 2 years ago (2 children) Joke's on you! Humans will be extinct by 2531. Maybe by 2031 if Trump becomes president again. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] sujpr@lemmy.ca -13 points 2 years ago 🥱 permalink fedilink source parent [+] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -17 points 2 years ago (2 children) That doesn't contradict the original statement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) But it does though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "Every person in Japan will be called Sato." In formal logic, this is equivalent to "There is no person in Japan not called Sato." Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Every person is also called Steve. Or Klaus. Edit: once you take the second part of the headline about the marriage law into account you're right, my bad ^-^ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent [+] SharkAttak@kbin.social -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I volunteer to marry there, and help avert this catastrophe, even a little bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 2 years ago For one, there is no legal requirement that a Japanese partner take the name of their foreign spouse (in fact, it's basically the exception to the rule that all married couples must have the same surname). permalink fedilink source parent
[+] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -17 points 2 years ago (2 children) That doesn't contradict the original statement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) But it does though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "Every person in Japan will be called Sato." In formal logic, this is equivalent to "There is no person in Japan not called Sato." Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Every person is also called Steve. Or Klaus. Edit: once you take the second part of the headline about the marriage law into account you're right, my bad ^-^ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent [+] SharkAttak@kbin.social -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I volunteer to marry there, and help avert this catastrophe, even a little bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 2 years ago For one, there is no legal requirement that a Japanese partner take the name of their foreign spouse (in fact, it's basically the exception to the rule that all married couples must have the same surname). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) But it does though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "Every person in Japan will be called Sato." In formal logic, this is equivalent to "There is no person in Japan not called Sato." Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Every person is also called Steve. Or Klaus. Edit: once you take the second part of the headline about the marriage law into account you're right, my bad ^-^ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "Every person in Japan will be called Sato." In formal logic, this is equivalent to "There is no person in Japan not called Sato." Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Every person is also called Steve. Or Klaus. Edit: once you take the second part of the headline about the marriage law into account you're right, my bad ^-^ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SharkAttak@kbin.social -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I volunteer to marry there, and help avert this catastrophe, even a little bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 2 years ago For one, there is no legal requirement that a Japanese partner take the name of their foreign spouse (in fact, it's basically the exception to the rule that all married couples must have the same surname). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 2 years ago For one, there is no legal requirement that a Japanese partner take the name of their foreign spouse (in fact, it's basically the exception to the rule that all married couples must have the same surname). permalink fedilink source parent